ANN BAVENDER’ ANNE GOODWIN CRUMP VINCENT J. CURTIS, JR. RICHARD J. ESTEVEZ PAUL J. FELDMAN RICHARD HILDRETH FRANK R. JAZZ0 ANDREW S. KERSTING EUGENE M. LAWSON, JR. SUSAN A. MARSHALL’ HARRY C. MARTIN GEORGE PETRUTSAS RAYMOND J. OUIANZON LEONARD R. RAISH JAMES p. RILEY KATHLEEN VICTORY HOWARD M. WEISS

*NOT ADMITTED IN VIRGINIA

FRANK U. FLETCHER

FLETCHER, HEALD & HILDRETH, P.L.C.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

11th FLOOR, 1300 NORTH 17th STREET

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22209-3801

(703) 612-0400

(1939.1965) ROBERT L. HEALD

(1956.1963) PAUL D.P SPEARMAN

(1936.1962) FRANK ROBERSON

(1936-1961) RUSSELL ROWELL

(1946-1977)

EDWARD F. KENEHAN

TELECOPIER RECE/v~D

(1960-1976)

coNS”LTANT FOR lMERN*TlONAL AND ,,,TEAGWERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

(703) 812-0486 SHELDON J. KRYS

JUN 2 4 1cJgg ” s AMBASSAOOA (ret.)

INTERNET OF COUNSEL EDWARD A. CAINE’

www.fhh-telcomlaw.com MITCHELL LAZARUS EDWARD S. O’NEILC

JOHN JOSEPH SMITH

June 24, 1999 WRITEWS DIRECT

703-812-0440 lazan&hh-telcomlawxom

BY HAND DELIVERY Magalie Salas, Esq. Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW, Room TW-B204 Washington, DC 20554

Re: The Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Mobile Satellite Service in the 2 GHz Band IB Docket No. 9941

Dear Ms. Salas:

I enclose for filing with the Commission the original and nine copies of “Comments of the Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition” in the above-captioned proceeding.

Kindly date-stamp and return the extra copy of this cover letter.

If there are any questions about this filing, please call me at the number above.

Sincerely,

Mitchell Lazar&& Counsel for the Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition

ML:deb

Enclosures

cc: Thomas A. Keller, Esquire h’a. 05 Copies rec’d Leonard R. Raish, Esquire List ABCDE

ORIGINAL

In the Matter of

Before the Federal Communications Commission

Washington DC 20554

The Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Mobile Satellite Service in the 2 GHz Band

IB Docket No. 99-81 RM-9328

COMMENTS OF THE FIXED WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS COALITION

The Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition (FWCC)’ hereby submits these

Comments in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice) in the above-captioned

proceeding.*

The 2 GHz MSS applicants have proposed a variety of feeder link schemes to support

their operations. 3 Most of these requests seek frequencies that are heavily used by the Fixed

Service. (Appendix B identifies terrestrial spectrum targeted for MSS feeder links.) Yet the

Notice omits any discussion of the likely impact on Fixed Service operations and expansion.

1 The FWCC is a coalition of equipment manufacturers and users interested in terrestrial fixed microwave communications. Its membership includes manufacturers of microwave equipment, licensees of terrestrial fixed microwave systems and their associations, and communication service providers and their associations. Its membership also includes railroads, public utilities, petroleum and pipeline entities, public safety agencies, the broadcast industry and their respective associations, telecommunications carriers, landline and wireless, local, and interexchange carriers, and others. A list of members is attached as Appendix A.

2 The Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Mobile Satellite Service in the 2 GHz Band, IB Docket No. 99-8 1, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 99-50 (released March 25, 1999) (Notice).

3 See Notice at T[y 49-66, and particularly the table at 7 50.

A. The Commission Should Not Designate Fixed Service Spectrum for MSS Feeder Links.

The Fixed Services are an unsung but vital part of the Nation’s infrastructure. They

provide communications essential to the energy, transportation, and telecommunications

industries, among others, and play a key role in public safety and other governmental operations.

A grant of the MSS applicants’ requests for frequencies that impinge on Fixed Service spectrum

would exacerbate the shrinkage of spectrum for these important functions.

Recent history justifies the Fixed Services’ alarm. A sequence of apparently independent

policy decisions in several bands has seriously curtailed Fixed Service operators’ access to

spectrum for forced relocation and to accommodate needed growth. First came a reallocation of

2 GHz band frequencies from the Fixed Service to mobile satellite services.4 Then, despite

having identified the 6 GHz band as a primary relocation site for 2 GHz users,’ the Commission

proposed designating the upper 6 GHz band (6700-7075 MHz) for mobile satellite feeder links6

- a proposal reiterated here. 7 The Commission also proposed a similarly severe reduction of

spectrum available to the Fixed Service in the 18 GHz band.* The ongoing Ku-band proceeding

4 Redevelopment of the Snectrum to Encourage Innovation in New Telecommunications Technologv, ET Docket No. 92-2, First Report and Order, 7 FCC Red 6886 (1992), Second Report and Order, 8 FCC Red 6495 (1993), Third Report and Order, 8 FCC Red 6589 (1993). The same proceeding also allocated 2 GHz frequencies to PCS.

5 Second Report and Order, supra, 8 FCC Red at 6506,T 28 (“We believe that 6 GHz will be the primary relocation band for 2 GHz licensees, and therefore efficiently accommodating these licensees in this band is of the utmost importance.“)

6 Amendment of Parts 2.25 and 97 of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Mobile Satellite Service Above 1 GHz, 13 FCC Red 17 107 (1998).

7 See Appendix B.

8 Redesignation of the 17.7-19.7 GHz Frequency Band, 13 FCC Red 19923 (1998).

-2-

threatens to move NGSO gateway stations into the already-congested 11 GHz band, and to

expand GSO FSS downlink operations from half that band to the full band.’ The “shared” 3.7-

4.2 GHz band has become effectively unavailable to the Fixed Service due to the extremely

difficult problems of coordinating new Fixed Service stations with existing licensed earth

stations. In the 36-5 1 GHz band, satellite interests have filed petitions to overturn an equitable

distribution of spectrum between satellite systems and wireless operations, including the Fixed

Service.i”

These actions and proposals have left the Fixed Service with insufficient spectrum for the

reasonable expansion it needs to meet the requirements of the industries and governmental

agencies that rely on it for essential services. The Commission should not worsen the problem

by cutting further into critical spectrum.

B. If the Commission Designates Fixed Service Spectrum for MSS Feeder Links, It Must Promulgate Sharing and Coordination Rules that Adequately Protect Fixed Service Operation and Expansion.

In the alternative, any move toward designating Fixed Service spectrum for MSS feeder

links must be accompanied by rules that permit equitable sharing by the Fixed Service in

practice, as well as in principle, in bands that are co-primary to satellite operations and the Fixed

Services.

9 NGSO FSS Systems Co-Frequencv with GSO and Terrestrial Svstems, ET Docket No. 98-206, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 98-3 10 (released Nov. 24, 1998). The proposal to expand GSO FSS operations is not discussed in text, but appears in Appendix A, C.F.R. $ 25.202(a)(l) (proposed).

10 Petition for Reconsideration of Hughes Communications, Inc. (filed Feb. 16, 1999); Petition for Reconsideration of GE American Communications, Inc. (filed Feb. 16, 1999); and Petition for Reconsideration/Clarification of TRW, Inc. (filed Feb. 16, 1999). These seek reconsideration of Allocation and Designation of Spectrum, IB Docket No. 97-95, Report and Order, FCC 98-336 (released Dec. 23, 1998).

-3-

The sharing issue is especially critical with regard to NGSO facilities. Coordinating and

sharing with GSO earth stations has cost Fixed Service operators access to huge geographical

areas, but sharing with NGSO feeder link earth stations will be even more difficult. Because

NGSO antennas move continuously over much of the sky, each site “sterilizes” a much larger

area against Fixed Service operations than a GSO earth station does.

1. The Commission must constrain the deployment and design of MSS feeder link earth stations.

Certain limitations are needed on feeder link earth stations that use Fixed Service

spectrum to promote equitable band sharing:

Limit total numbers offeeder link earth stations. A single earth station can require a Fixed Service applicant to coordinate anywhere within 100 to 150 miles, depending on terrain, latitude, and other factors. The resulting coordination area is larger than some states. If each of the nine MSS applicants listed in Appendix B were to deploy several feeder link earth stations, they would close vast territories to Fixed Service use.

Collocate the feeder link earth stations of various MSS providers. This step will limit the total areas that require coordination, and hence help to control the impact on the Fixed Service by multiple MSS providers.

Site feeder link earth stations away from population centers and intercity routes. The demand for Fixed Service facilities is highest in the population centers and along the major routes connecting them. MSS feeder link earth stations in contrast, can be sited anywhere fiber optic links can reach. Locating them away from high-concentration Fixed Service operations will promote efficient sharing.

Require use of the largest feasible antennas for feeder link earth stations. Larger antennas permit locating Fixed Service facilities over a larger part of the earth station’s coordination area.

Shieldfeeder link earth stations. Shielding permits Fixed Service operation in closer proximity to earth stations.”

11 In the alternative, the Commission can require “virtual shielding” around feeder link earth stations. This means that Fixed Service users can always assume a specified degree of

-4-

n Set standards for earth station spectrum efficiency. Maximizing the use of shared spectrum requires each user to occupy as little of it as possible. The fixed services have been a technology leader in the efficient use of ever-scarcer spectrum.‘2 At the very least, MSS feeder link operations should be required to reach the equivalent,of 16-QAM, or 4 bits/second/Hertz.

2. The Commission must establish coordination procedures that give the Fixed Service equitable access to shared spectrum.

Existing coordination procedures severely disadvantage Fixed Service operators vis-a-vis

earth stations, even in spectrum that in principle is allocated coequally. To be sure, Fixed

Service users and satellite users are subject to frequency coordination procedures that look

similar in writing. A proposed station, whether terrestrial or satellite earth station, must show it

will not cause interference to a previously licensed station in either service, and must accept

interference from previously licensed stations in either service.13 In principle, these requirements

are the same for the two services,

In practice, however, all similarity vanishes. A terrestrial applicant must usually

coordinate if it seeks to locate anywhere in an area of 50,000-200,000 square miles (!) around

each earth station. Moreover, at least since 1967, the Commission has routinely licensed an earth

shielding for coordination purposes, whether or not it is actually in place. The MSS provider retains the option of whether to construct the shielding. This allows the MSS provider to minimize its expenses, while still giving Fixed Service operators reasonable flexibility in coordinating growth of their services.

12 The Fixed Service introduced 16-QAM (at 4 bits/second/Hertz) in the early 1980s. It advanced to 64-QAM (6 bits/second/Hertz) a few years later, and today typically uses 128-QAM (7 bits/second/Hertz). Modulation technologies that permit up to 9 bits/second/Hertz are becoming available. Additionally, through the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) and the National Spectrum Managers Association (NSMA), the Fixed Service has developed comprehensive and effective methodologies for coordination of Fixed Service routes with maximum frequency re-use.

13 See generally 47 C.F.R. 8 25.203(c), 101.103.

-5-

station for its entire allocated band without any inquiry into the actual amount of traffic to be

carried.14 The application form for an earth station does not even ask for information that would

let the Commission determine how much spectrum the applicant reasonably needs. Earth

stations routinely license hundreds of megahertz for which they have no traffic, and by doing so,

maintain preemption rights for that unused spectrum over tens of thousands of square miles.

If the Commission requires sharing between MSS feeder link earth stations and Fixed

Service facilities, it should adopt rules to improve the equity in coordination.‘5

First, where there is significant overlap between MSS designations and the Fixed Service,

feeder link earth stations should be required to specify half of the overlap to be left available for

Fixed Service growth.

Second, Fixed Service operators should have to coordinate only over the azimuths

actually used by an earth station. If a provider’s satellite geometry dictates that its feeder link

earth stations will never point within X degrees of north, for example, then a Fixed Service

station within that range of azimuths should not have to coordinate with the earth station, even if

it otherwise lies within the coordination distance.‘6

14 See Communications Satellite Corn., 8 F.C.C.2d 1001, 1003 (1967) (consistent practice in the United States to “coordinate[] the entire bands 5925-6425 MHz (transmit) and 3700-4200 MHz (receive) and all azimuths from O”-360” and all elevation angles from 5” and above, in order to allow for flexibility of operation.“) Although this opinion found “little or no adverse affect upon terrestrial systems in the areas concerned,” id., that is no longer true 32 years later.

15 Where satellite services are secondary to the Fixed Services, as at 27.5- 28.35 GHz, no coordination is required, because Fixed Service users have priority over the spectrum and MSS providers must operate on a secondary, non-interference basis.

16 The FWCC opposes the alternative of coordinating within the unused azimuths, on the assumption the coordination will clear. Frequency coordination is expensive and entails delays. Fixed Service users should not have to coordinate where interference cannot arise.

-6-

Third, if an earth station accepts a higher-than-desired interference objective when

coordinating, then a Fixed Service facility that subsequently coordinates should have the benefit

of the same higher level. The present rules permit a new earth station to accept interference cases

that exceed the desired objective by a significant amount - and then to bar new Fixed Service

users that fail to meet the same objective that the earth station waived. The Commission should

change this practice and restore symmetry between the two services. For example:

n If an earth station accepts a higher level of interference because it does not plan to use the frequencies on which the interference is present, it must specify that a future incoming Fixed Service station need not coordinate on those frequencies.

n If an earth station accepts a higher level of interference because it is shielded by a local feature such as a building or a hill, it must accept a new Fixed Service station coordinated at the same higher level, if it is shielded by the same feature.

n If an earth station accepts a higher level of interference without explanation, then a future incoming Fixed Service station located in the same general area can coordinate at that same higher level.r7

These rules will permit maximally efficient use of the spectrum by both MSS providers

and Fixed Service operators, while minimizing significant harmful interference to both.

CONCLUSION

A major part of the U.S. domestic infrastructure, including railroads, pipelines, utilities,

state and local governments, public safety agencies, and cable TV systems, depend on terrestrial

fixed systems for safe, efficient, and reliable operation. As explained above, a sequence of

apparently unrelated Commission decisions affecting several frequency bands between 2 and

30 GHz has already seriously curtailed Fixed Service operators’ access to spectrum needed for

17 See also Request for Declaratorv Ruling and Petition for Rule Making of The Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition, RM-9649 (filed May 5, 1999).

-7-

new terrestrial systems and for growth of existing ones. If MSS feeder links are to be

superimposed on spectrum already used for terrestrial fixed systems, any such action should be

delayed until sharing criteria and coordination rules can be developed and promulgated,

especially in light of spectrum already lost to accommodate the satellite services.

Finally, if the Commission does require sharing in these bands, it must prevent the same

kind of sterilization that occurred at 4 GHz. To that end, the FWCC asks the Commission to

impose reasonable restrictions on MSS feeder link earth station numbers, collocation, siting,

antenna size, shielding, and spectrum efficiency. The FWCC also requests coordination

procedures that will yield equitable sharing of geography and spectrum.

Respectfully submitted,

Leonard R. Raish Mitchell Lazarus FLETCHER, HEALD & HILDRETH, P.L.C. 1300 North 17th Street, 11 th Floor Arlington, VA 22209 703-B 12-0400

June 24,1999 Counsel for the Fixed Wireless

Communications Coalition

-8-

Amendix A

MEMBERS OF FIXED WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS COALITION

USERS

Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials American Mobile Telephone Association UTC - The Telecommunications Association National Association of Broadcasters Independent Cable Telecommunications Association American Petroleum Institute International Wireless Cable Association Personal Communications Industry Association CBS Communications Services Norfolk-Southern Railroad Union Pacific Railroad Burlington-Northern Railroad BellSouth Bell Atlantic SBC Communications, Inc. People’s Choice TV Association of American Railroads Nortel Networks

MANUFACTURERS

Harris Corporation -- Farinon Division Alcatel Network Systems Inc. Digital Microwave Corporation Sierra Digital Communications California Microwave, Microwave Data Systems Tadiran Microwave Networks Bosch Telecom.

June 24,1999

-i-

Amendix B

MSS FEEDER LINK REOUESTS IN TERRESTRIAL SPECTRUM’

Band Applicant Feeder Links Terrestrial Use

5091-5250 MHz Constellation II NGSO uplink Unlicensed U-N11

5 150-5250 MHz ICO NGSO uplink Unlicensed U-N11

6425-6575 MHz Inmarsat Horizons GSO downlink CC, LTTS, OFS, BAS, CARS

6700-6875 MHz Globalstar NGSO downlink CC, OFS

6700-7075 MHz Constellation II NGSO downlink CC, OFS

6775-7075 MHz MCHI Ellipso 2G NGSO uplink CC, OFS

10.70-10.95 & TM1 Cansat-M3 GSO uplink CC, LTTS, OFS, 11.20-l 1.45 GHz

11.597- 1.700 GHz’ Boeing NGSO downlink CC, LTTS, OFS

11.70- 12.20 GHz Globalstar GSO downlink LTTS

12.75-13.25 GHz TM1 Cansat-M3 GSO downlink CC, LTTS, OFS, BAS, CARS

14.0-14.4 GHz Globalstar GSO uplink LTTS

14.391-14.500 GHz3 Boeing NGSO uplink LTTS

17.70-18.35 GHz4 Celsat GSO downlink CC, OFS, BAS, CARS

19.30-19.70 GHz’ Iridium Macrocell NGSO downlink CC, OFS, BAS, CARS

27.50-28.35 GHz Celsat GSO uplink LMDS

29.10-29.50 GlW Iridium Macrocell NGSO uplink LMDS

Notes

1. MSS requests are from The Establishment of Polices and Service Rules for the Mobile Satellite Service in the 2 GHz Band, IB Docket No. 99-8 1, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 99-50 (released March 25, 1999) (Notice). Fixed Service data are from 47 C.F.R. 5 101.101.

2. The Commission indicated it will consider the Boeing requests as part of the SkyBridge rulemaking in ET Docket No. 98-206 and related application proceedings. Notice at 7 61.

3. See preceding Note.

-i-

4. In IB Docket No. 98-172, the Commission proposed to designate 17.7-18.3 GHz on a primary basis for terrestrial fixed service. GSO FSS would have secondary access.

5. IB Docket 98-l 72 proposes to retain 19.3-l 9.7 GHz on a co-primary basis for both terrestrial fixed use and MSS feeder links.

6. The 29.1 O-29.25 GHz segment is allocated on a co-primary basis to LMDS and NGSO MSS feeder links. This is the LMDS “hub-to-sub segment,” intended for to forward transmissions from the LMDS operator to subscribers. The 29.25-29.50 GHz segment is allocated to GSO FSS, co-primary with MSS. See Redesignation of the 27.5-29.5 GHz Frecyencv Band, 11 FCC Red 19005, 19033-34 (1996).

-ii-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Deborah N. Lunt, a secretary for the law firm of Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, P.L.C., hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing “Comments of the Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition” was sent this 24th day of June, 1999, via Hand-Delivery to the following:

Chairman William E. Kennard Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street S W . . Washington, D.C. 20554

Commissioner Harold Furchtgott-Roth Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554

Commissioner Michael Powell Federal Communications Commission 445 12’h Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554

Commissioner Susan Ness Federal Communications Commission 445 12* Street, S.W. Washington, DC. 20554

Commissioner Gloria Tristani Federal Communications Commission 445 12’h Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554

Donald Abelson, Chief International Bureau Federal Communications Commission 445 12’h Street, S.W., 6* Floor Washington, D.C. 20554

Roderick Kelvin Porter, Deputy Chief International Bureau Federal Communications Commission 445 12’h Street, S.W., 6th Floor Washington, D.C. 20554

Richard B. Engelman, Chief Planning & Negotiations Division International Bureau Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 7A-760 Washington, D.C. 20554

Damon Ladson, Deputy Chief Planning & Negotiations Division International Bureau Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 7A-761 Washington, D.C. 20554

Ronald Repasi, Chief Satellite Engineering Branch International Bureau Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 6A-505 Washington, D.C. 20554

Kimberly Braum Satellite Engineering Branch International Bureau Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 6B-540 Washington, D.C. 20554

Julie A. Garcia Satellite Engineering Branch International Bureau Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 6B-554 Washington, D.C. 20554

Jennifer Gilsenan Satellite Policy Branch International Bureau Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 6A-520 Washington, D.C. 20554

Harry Ng Satellite & Radiocommunication Branch International Bureau Federal Communications Commission 445 12* Street, S.W., Room 6A-668 Washington, D.C. 2055

Thomas J. Sugrue, Chief Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Federal Communications Commission 445 12* Street, S.W., Room 3C252 Washington, D.C. 205 54

D’ Wana Terry, Chief Public Safety & Private Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20554

Herb Zeiler, Deputy Chief Public Safety & Private Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20554

John Cimko, Chief Policy Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 3C124 Washington, D.C. 20554

Ed Jacobs Policy Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Federal Communications Commission 445 12* Street, S.W., Room 3C1620 Washington, D.C. 20554

Dale Hatfield, Bureau Chief Office of Engineering and Technology Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 7C-155 Washington, D.C. 20554

Rebecca Dorch, Deputy Chief Office of Engineering and Technology Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W., 7th Floor Washington, D.C. 20554

Bruce Franca, Deputy Chief Office of Engineering and Technology Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street S W 7th Floor Washington, D.C. 26’554

Julius Knapp, Chief Policy & Rules Division Office of Engineering and Technology Federal Communications Commission 445 12* Street, S.W., 7th Floor Washington, D.C. 20554

Geraldine Matise, Deputy Chief Policy & Rules Division Office of Engineering and Technology Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W., 7th Floor Washington, D.C. 20554

Charles Iseman, Chief Spectrum Policy Branch Office of Engineering and Technology Federal Communications Commission 445 12* Street, S.W., 7th Floor Washington, D.C. 20554

Tom Derenge Spectrum Policy Branch Office of Engineering and Technology Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W., 7th Floor Washington, D.C. 20554

International Transcription Service 123 1 20th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037